It's a massive overreach to demand a backdoor to phones within the country. Don't allow the even bigger overreach to move the Overton window and make it seem like it should ever be acceptable.
Yeah, that's the root of the problem, I think.
It's easy to sell people that "we just need this one more bit of access to your private data, it helps us stops paedophiles and terrorists", but each step takes us further down a bad path.
I'm sure everybody would agree that having full camera surveillance inside every UK home is too far, but no oversight at all is also bad.
There is a point along that line where society would say "no, that's enough", but successive governments have realised that they can slowly push that point further right and nobody seems to notice, or care.
If the people were strongly against the Snooper's Charter there would be politicians willing to stand against it. The parties do not impose their will on the people, they do and say what they must to gain and keep power.
There's a large difference between backdooring end-to-end encryption and accessing financial records that are already by design available to the financial institution.
FYI I am not a "US Person", whatever that means, yet when I signed up with my bank account in an EU country I had to sign an affidavit claiming I am not a "US Person", although that designation has no meaning in the local laws.
These requirements are in place in part because the US wants to tax the income of US citizens no matter where they are in the world. So, they make requirements like FATCA and make requirements on foreign banks that amount to "we won't do business with you unless you impose these requirements on all US citizens (which inherently also means asking everyone if they're a US citizen)".
Totally OK, given the precedent?
2) As stated, I don't support either. But I also think there's a meaningful difference between the two.